ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Refining caudal catheterization for anorectal surgery: a comparative study of a technique to optimize sensory block and minimize motor impairment.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of caudal epidural catheterization for anorectal surgery has not been systematically investigated.
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery under caudal epidural anesthesia at our institution. 163 patients who received conventional single-injection caudal anesthesia (20 mL of 5 mg/mL ropivacaine) and 62 patients who received our refined catheterization technique were included. In the refined group, an initial height-based dose of 5 mg/mL ropivacaine (10-16 mL according to patient height) was administered through a Tuohy needle, followed by 2 cm cephalad catheterization; additional 5 mg/mL ropivacaine was then titrated via the catheter until complete sensory blockade of the surgical site was achieved. To compare the two techniques while minimizing selection bias, we performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Anesthetic efficacy, sensory block level, lower limb motor block, and procedure-related complications were assessed.
resultsThe refined technique demonstrated comparable anesthetic efficacy to conventional caudal anesthesia (Grade I anesthetic efficacy: 86.8% vs. 85.6%; OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.46-2.66, p = 0.820). The refined technique significantly improved preservation of lower extremity motor function, with a higher rate of no motor block (84.7% vs. 71.7%; OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.01-4.71, p = 0.047) and higher level of Sensory block (median S2 vs. S3; OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.33-3.77, p = 0.002).
conclusionCompared with conventional single-injection caudal anesthesia, the refined caudal catheterization regimen provides non-inferior anesthetic efficacy, superior preservation of lower extremity motor function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.